Tag Archives: nature

Fukushima Sixth Anniversary and the conflicting Information surrounding It

Tomorrow is going to be sixth anniversary of the earthquake and tsunami in Japan that lead to the nuclear disaster in Fukushima. I already wrote about this two months ago and questioned what we are being told about radiation.

 

Conflicting Information

The information we’ve received about Fukushima is fairly conflicting in my opinion. The Dai-ichi plant is supposedly still leaking radiation and has been doing so for five years, yet we haven’t seen any grand scale environmental disaster or health problems due to it. Certainly the Japanese government and media suppressed some information relating to Fukushima, and there have been reports of health issues in some Japanese people, mutated vegetables and other alarming, yet not obviously disastrous issues. When the Fukushima disaster occurred, I was expecting tons of obvious health issues, mutations and whatnot to occur in Japan. Something so drastic that it cannot be covered up. Yet life in most parts of Japan goes on as normal.

In my opinion there is a great deal we are not being told. Either about Fukushima itself or about nuclear power. Just last month Fox News reported that the radiation level are at “unimaginable” levels, and the “highest they’ve been since 2011 when a tsunami hit the coastal reactor”. I’ve been seeing reports like this every now and then since 2011. It seems to me that either the reports are wrong, or that radiation isn’t as harmful as we’ve been lead to believe. There have also been several claims over the years that Tokyo should not be inhabited anymore or that it will become uninhabited in X years.

On the other hand, plenty of main stream media outlets are saying that radiation from Fukushima is not a big deal.

I don’t know what is going on, except that the information we are getting is contradictory. Therefore I will propose a few different possibilities for what is going on. Some of them are more fringe than others.

 

Theories on what is going on

One possibility is as I suggested in my previous article, “How do we know that Radioactivity is actually harmful?”, that maybe radiation really is not as harmful as they claim. It might even have beneficial qualities to it. I should remind of the late nuclear engineer, Galen Winsor, who claimed that uranium is not harmful. He even ate some of it in front of a video camera. Maybe he was lying, maybe he was a fraud but he seems credible to me, and suggest seeing some of his videos on Youtube.

Another possibility on Fukushima is that maybe Tepco actually managed to clean up most of the damage caused by the nuclear accident, and the reports in the media that claim the reactor is still leaking are disinformation to cause fear or for other reasons. Alternatively, maybe someone or something else had cleaned site. Perhaps nature has an effective method of diluting the harmful effects of nuclear waste and radiation. Or maybe it was friendly aliens. I don’t find this a credible possibility, but it is still a possibility.

Then again, maybe all we’ve been told about nuclear power is a lie. Maybe they never even split the atom, and atom bombs and nuclear power plants use a different kind of technology that we haven’t been told of. I recall reading about a conspiracy theory on the internet long time ago that claims atom bombs are a hoax. It has resurfaced recently. Even back then I thought the claim is so far off I don’t think anyone would make it up just for the purposes of disinformation. It probably has some truth to it. If this is true, then nuclear power plants probably produce electricity through a method other than nuclear fission.

 

Conclusion

I don’t know what is going on with Fukushima and nuclear power in general, but if it is not as bad as it seems, it’s good news. Maybe Japan’s environment wasn’t as devastated as I and many others thought by the disaster. The effects of radiation could be more subtle, though, and only manifest in a very obvious way only after years. However, it seems to me we are not getting the whole story. On one side the media is saying, it’s nothing, don’t worry about it, and on the other they are saying that it’s still leaking and the radiation levels are getting worse.

 

 

Links:

‘Fukushima catastrophe ongoing: Leakage on a daily basis’: https://www.rt.com/op-edge/376607-leakage-radiation-fukushima-japan/

Revenge of the mutant vegetables? Pictures of crops ‘deformed by fall-out of Fukushima nuclear disaster’ sweep Asia. . . but is it all just a hoax?: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2367436/Fukushima-mutant-vegetable-images-sweep-region-years-nuclear-disaster.html

Witness the nuclear fear scam. Scientist eats uranium.: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QmJN-LMPnX0

Radiation at Japan’s Fukushima Reactor Is Now at ‘Unimaginable’ Levels: http://insider.foxnews.com/2017/02/08/unimaginable-levels-radiation-fukushima-pacific-ocean-leaks

Fukushima Radiation Has Contaminated The Entire Pacific Ocean (And It’s Going To Get Worse): http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-10-02/fukushima-radiation-has-contaminated-entire-pacific-ocean-and-its-going-get-worse

Should we be worried about Fukushima radiation?: http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation-now/2016/12/09/should-we-worried-fukushima-radiation/95196156/

‘Fukushima ‘safe’ for Tokyo 2020′: http://www.newvision.co.ug/new_vision/news/1440364/fukushima-safe-tokyo-2020

How do we know that Radioactivity is actually harmful?: https://concordiaabchao.wordpress.com/2017/01/11/radioactivity-harmful/

Giant Trees and Hexagonal shapes in Nature

Last night I saw Youtube video that is supposedly creating some uproar in the alternative research community. It’s called There Are No Forests On Flat Earth. The name makes it sounds like stupid click-bait, but it’s actually nothing like that. It’s one of the most thought-provoking videos I’ve seen, and I’ve seen a lot of them.

I recommend watching the video. It was originally made by a Russian guy whose Youtube channel is titled Ljudin Rɣsi (Людин Рɣси), but his English isn’t that good so (an American?) woman by the name of Rhonda dubbed the video to make it more understandable.

 

Giant Trees

The video basically suggests there were giant trees ranging from 6 to 60 kilometres tall around the Earth in ancient times. As far fetched as it might sound, the video does provide some evidence to this claim. Fairly convincing evidence, but certainly not absolute proof. The main example used is Devil’s Tower from Wyoming, USA. It’s a flat topped mountain that looks like a giant tree stump.

DevilsTower

 

It’s of course easy to dismiss this as a co-incidence, but the Russian Youtuber shows pictures of several mountains that resemble tree stumps from around the world, and other mountains that look like trees that have been destroyed in a more brutal manner. I suggest you take a look at the video yourself to make sure whether you agree or not.

The idea that trees taller than Mount Everest have existed on Earth in ancient times is obviously outrageous, and outrageous claims require outrageous proofs, but the fact is that these odd-looking mountains exist is in itself a valid point of interest. Even if you don’t buy the Russian’s assertion of giant trees, you should not discard the attention he is bringing to these mysterious landmarks.

 

Hexagonal Stone Pillars

One intriguing detail in Devil’s Tower, and many other curious sites around the world, is the hexagonal shape of the stone. Devil’s Tower appears to consist of hexagonal pillars.

TowerHexagon

 

The video shows several other curious hexagonal stone structures from around the world. These are supposedly natural formations. The video points out that such shapes occur in nature, such as in honeycomb and snowflakes. Some turtle shells also have hexagonal patterns. One thing that bothers me though, in regard to the Russian video’s claims is that normal trees don’t seem to have these hexagonal shapes, so why do these curious sites from around the world have them if they are all remnants of the giant trees? The giant trees could naturally have different properties compared to normal trees. The video calls the giant trees silicon trees, but I’m not sure whether it means that the trees were originally made of silicon, or they’ve been turned to silicon by some sort of ancient bio-weapon?

Even if the hexagonal rock pillars don’t have anything to do with trees, it does not detract from the fact that the existence of the pillars is quite a conundrum. According to modern science they’ve been formed by lava and volcanic activity 50-60 million years ago. I’d like to know how they know that. Was a scientist there then recording the event? Have volcanoes managed to form these even hexagonal shapes in the last few centuries since we’ve had natural philosophers and scientists? Or are they just talking out of their asses?

Even if the Giant Tree-theory sounds far-fetched, it’s still a more reasonable explanation than the one modern science gives us. There is actual physical evidence to support the Giant Tree-theory; the tree stump-looking mountains. I am very unconvinced of anything modern science says happened tens of thousands or millions of years ago. They weren’t there. They’re just guessing at best.

 

Titans and all that

Let’s just assume for a moment that giant trees, taller than any sky-scrapers or mountains that we have now, did exist long time ago. This would offer insight many of ours old myths and legends as well.

Giant’s Causeway in Ireland is probably one of the most famous sites for hexagonal pillars. Please note the name; Giant’s Causeway. Perhaps the giant trees were the giants and titans of ancient myth. Or possibly there were giant trees and giant people along with them. Even the Bible says in Numbers 13:33: “And there we saw the giants [Nephilim], the sons of Anak, which come of the giants: and we were in our own sight as grasshoppers, and so we were in their sight.”

Amos 2:9 associates the Amorite giants with trees: “Yet destroyed I the Amorite before them, whose height was like the height of the cedars, and he was strong as the oaks; yet I destroyed his fruit from above, and his roots from beneath.”

Then there are of course trees of mythology and religion, like the Tree of Life, Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil, and the World Tree, Yggdrasil. If people used to live around giant trees, it makes much more sense that they’d come up with these myths.

In Giant’s Causeway there is this curiously shaped rock called Giant’s Boot, that looks like a boot.

Giantsboot

 

In Hong Kong Global Geopark there are not only the hexagonal stone pillars, but also a huge rock protruding from the ground which resembles a giant hand or fist. It is called the Devil’s Fist.

Devil'sFist

 

Were there actually giants in the ancient world that were so big as to make us seem like grasshoppers? Are these giant bodypart-like rocks remains of giants that were petrified by the same thing that petrified the giant trees? Then again they might just be co-incidental. Perhaps the giants of myth were just giant trees.

What formed the hexagonal pillars? Were they some sort of living things that were petrified? Were they made by an ancient advanced civilization for an unknown purpose?

 

Conclusion

In the end seeing the Russian video on the giant trees just created more questions than answers, which in my book means that it’s a worthwhile thing to watch. I find the possibility of giant trees having existed on the Earth quite titillating. Yet more evidence is needed before jumping to any conclusions. Even if the giant tree-thing turns out to be baseless Ljudin Rɣsi has done us a great favour of pointing out more that we don’t know about the history of our world, and that we have to look at it from a fresh perspective instead of being lead astray by conventional academia.

 

 

Links:

There Are No Forests On Flat Earth – ENGLISH VOICEOVER :): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2v5O6oVMSkw

There are no forests on Flat Earth Wake Up: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UHkiZNT3cyE

Devil’s tower: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Devils_Tower

 

Since some animals engage in homosexual acts, it’s natural for humans too, right?

I’ve heard the argument several times that since many different species of animals engage in homosexual behaviour, it’s normal and natural for human beings as well. Let’s look at the implications of this argument.

There are some claims that 1,500 different animals species engage in homosexual acts. Scientists don’t know how many different species there are on this planet, but Fact Monster gives the number 1,263,186 for different animal species. Assuming this is correct, it would mean that 1,500 out of that number is less that one percent. In the animal kingdom, homosexuality appears to be a curious anomaly at best.

This is also assuming these 1,500 species of animals all actually do engage in homosexual behaviour. I’m more inclined to think some of the cases of animal homosexuality have been discovered by zoologists with a political agenda of promoting homosexuality. Another possible explanation is anthropomorphization of their behaviour, i.e. scientists see animals doing something would be interpreted as gay if human beings were to do it, but it is not necessarily sexual for the animals. For example, a BBC article on homosexuality in animals quotes a scientist’s explanation of seemingly lesbian behaviour in bonobos, a species of ape, that they were “emitting grins and squeals that probably reflect orgasmic experiences” when they were rubbing their genitals together. “Probably reflect” does not equate scientific proof.

However, my aim is not to debunk animal homosexuality. It probably does exist, although I find it questionable to what extent. Also, if animals engage in homosexual behaviour, it does not necessarily conclude it is “natural” for them. Perhaps animals, the same as humans, can become perverted and engage in decadent acts for mere pleasure than ends up being harmful for them in the long run.

But let’s say that homosexuality is perfectly normal for various species of animals, and even has natural and evolutionary benefits for them. We could even say, for the sake of the argument, that half of all the animal species on earth engage in homosexual activities. Does it logically follow that human beings should do the same? No.

Human biology and psychology functions different from other animals. That’s the definition of a species; it has features that distinguish it from other species. Monkeys throw feces at each other. Does that mean that human beings should start throwing shit at each other? Unfortunately we do that figuratively over the internet every day, but it’s still something we shouldn’t do. Dogs eat shit, so should we do it too? Cats clean themselves with their tongues, so should I clean myself with my tongue? Taking a shower or a bath is much more preferable way for me to clean myself since human physiology works different to cats. Birds and reptiles lay eggs, while mammals, such as humans, don’t. Praying mantis females eat the male after copulation. Humans don’t do that, unless you take marriage to mean this figuratively. Fish live underwater, but human beings do not have gills, which means we’d drown if we tried.

Some species of fish change their sex at times. This is apparently a normal thing for these fish. I guess this means it’s natural for human beings to undergo sex change-surgery and become transgender? No. These fish do it naturally, human beings do it unnaturally by the use of technology.

I don’t think I have to go on. The argument, that since certain animals engage in homosexuality it is natural for human beings as well, is nonsensical. We are different species. What works for one species, may not necessarily hold for another. In this particular article I am not arguing that homosexuality is necessarily wrong for human beings, I’m simply pointing out the logical fallacies presented in the public in support of homosexual behaviour. However, since gay activists employ intellectually dishonest propaganda such as this for promoting the normalization of homosexuality, it makes me wonder if even they believe homosexuality is natural.

 

Links:

Think being gay is unnatural? These 11 animals will prove you wrong: http://www.gaystarnews.com/article/so-it-turns-out-giraffes-are-gayest-animal-planet231014/

1,500 animal species practice homosexuality: http://www.news-medical.net/news/2006/10/23/1500-animal-species-practice-homosexuality.aspx

Estimated Number of Animal and Plant Species on Earth: http://www.factmonster.com/ipka/A0934288.html

Are there any homosexual animals?: http://www.bbc.com/earth/story/20150206-are-there-any-homosexual-animals

Sex change in animals: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex_change

Freedom, discrimination, rights and liberalism

Freedom is a concept I’ve struggled with since I was a teenager. Even back then I understood freedom is not something given to you by legal document, a government or really even another person. They make take it away, or prevent others from taking it away from you, but you have to discover freedom yourself.

The best definition for freedom I can offer is: following your nature. For that to be possible, you have to know yourself. Rabbits, I imagine, are free when they can run around in the wild, eat grass and copulate with other bunnies. Birds are free living like birds, dogs are free living like dogs, you get the picture. There’s little any animal rights organization can do to make animals free by giving them imaginary rights. They can, however, reduce the amount of harm people do to their freedom via pollution and others unnatural activities.

Human beings are more complex. While no two dogs are the same, I guess they’d still be more similar compared to the potential of humans to differ from each other. There’s just so much variety to what human beings are passionate about, be it the countless different sciences and arts, sports, religious and spiritual ideas, conspiracies and mysteries. For example, I’m going to assume part of Wayne Gretzky’s nature was to play ice hockey. He was very good at it, and probably liked it. Even though he’s retired he’s probably fond the sport. I think part of what makes David Icke happy is to lecture about conspiracies. Of course, few people are happy doing just one thing. Part of what is inherent to most men is to need to have a woman, and most women want  a man.

For a human being to be free, you have to discover what makes you happy, and then fulfill those conditions. Unfortunately there are nasty forces afoot that want to inhibit people from being free, and that has to be fought against in order to be free, but that’s another story.

 

Liberalism

Yesterday, I listened to Alexander Dugin’s interview on Red Ice Creations. He understands quite well that modern liberalism isn’t about freedom. It’s about oppression wearing the mask of freedom. The ultra-leftist nuts who have infiltrated the higher levels of society in most Western countries don’t care at all about what makes you happy and free. They have a pre-determined formula, which doesn’t really function in the first place, that they want to impose on everyone. Usually it means imposing something on everyone that most people are not natural doing, such as homosexuality.

I don’t think homosexuality is particularly sinful or wrong, but there is the simple fact that the vast majority of human beings are not homosexual. Therefore, I would say, most people have a natural aversion to it. Only in the last few decades due to the constant propaganda has there been drastic change in the attitudes of people on homosexuality. I’m not saying the change in attitudes is entirely negative, I don’t think homosexuals should be treated like criminals or mental patients, but pro-LGBT propaganda has been excessive to say the least. In some cases it has been to harmful extents, since I do think many people inherently find homosexuality distasteful, but due to social norms are not in touch with their true sentiment. Then there are bound to be many heterosexuals who do find homosexuality intriguing, because it is different. There’s nothing wrong with those who like gays, or those who dislike them (as long as they don’t do anything excessive based on their feelings). Different people are naturally drawn to certain things, while others retract from them. Tastes differ as in music and food, also in more controversial matters like this.

The problem with liberalism is it imposes one view on others. Alexander Dugin said it’s like imperialism. European imperialists thought they knew what is good for the other races, and imposed their ideas onto them without asking. Many imperialists probably believed they were doing the right thing. Now the British empire does not rule half the world openly, but the neo-liberal capitalist system that believes that everyone should be bound to each other like an old-fashioned chain gang. They are all somewhat equal in their bondage. Liberalism is about equality, not freedom.

 

 

Another disturbing thing regarding liberalism is that it confuses freedom with defiance and rebellion. Sometimes you have to defy others and rebel against oppressors to find freedom, but it can work the other way around too. People who are spiritually enslaved, or B, want to rebel against people who are free, A, since to these rebels the fact that A is free is oppressive, although B’s enslavement is not the fault of A. This behaviour is obvious in the most common cultural marxist ideas of today where everyone who is not a black transsexual lesbian woman is an oppressor, and believes in social constructs such as race, sex and so on. Why these people feel enslaved is because of the social constructs in their heads, not because of other people’s attitudes.

Liberalism is the political progression from the most vulgar practices of the Marquis de Sade and Aleister Crowley. They were all about defying anything and everything the general public finds disgusting, such a sodomy, corpophagia and blasphemy. I do find both these men somewhat fascinating, although I don’t want engage in many of their activities, so I’m not claiming they were utterly evil. Rather from the viewpoint of the average person, what Sade and Crowley stood for was utterly reprehensible. Various kinds of aberrant behaviour do have their place in this world, but they are not to be brought to the dinner table. Liberalism in effect views freedom as making everyone view the world as Sade and Crowley did.

 

Discimination

Just few days ago there was this media hullabaloo in Indiana where a pizzeria refused to cater a gay wedding, because they’re Christian. I haven’t followed the story in depth, so I don’t know all of the developments, but sounds rather stupid. Of course Christians should be free to refuse to promote gay marriage. Others are free to think this bit of Christian dogma is stupid. But it’s borderline insane to make big deal about it. If they don’t wanna serve your wedding, give your money to someone else.

Somebody called FaithGardner commented on the pizzeria’s refusal on Daily Kos website: “You’re hateful. And guess what happens when you take to the media to trumpet your right to discriminate?” Apparently the place is closing down after the people said they have some principles.

Anyways FaithGardner used two keywords: hate and discrimination. First of all, what is so horrible about hate? Hate is a normal human emotion. It is something everyone should feel every now and then. That’s why we have various different emotions. Some of them “positive” and others “negative”. Excessive hate can be destructive, but so can excessive love be. Liberals ironically hate hate. They have laws against hate speech, and I guess soon against feeling the emotion too. It only serves to render people into robots, or pod-people from the Invasion of the Body Snatchers. (On a side note, I must recommend Simon Pegg’s interpretation on the theme, The World’s End.)

Henrik Palmgren of Red Ice Creations has said on a couple of occasions how we practice discrimination every day. We discriminate what shirt or shoes we wear. I sometimes have to discriminate between the kind of milk I have in my fridge, if it’s been there several days. I have to make the distinction if the milk has gone bad or is still drinkable. If I don’t discriminate, I might get sick.

Merriam-Webster dictionary gives the following definitions on “discrimination”:

“: the practice of unfairly treating a person or group of people differently from other people or groups of people

: the ability to recognize the difference between things that are of good quality and those that are not

: the ability to understand that one thing is different from another thing”

I guess I have to concede to the liberals that there are harmful forms of discrimination, however, I would say the original meaning of the word is reflected in the two bottom definitions. Online Etymology Dictionary defines discrimination as: “the making of distinctions”. Also it has the sentence: “It especially annoys me when racists are accused of ‘discrimination.’ The ability to discriminate is a precious facility; by judging all members of one ‘race’ to be the same, the racist precisely shows himself incapable of discrimination. [Christopher Hitchens]”

So I cannot say that it is in any way hateful or reprehensible if a Christian does not want serve at a gay wedding, a woman is attracted to men instead of other women, or even if a black man prefers to marry a black woman, a white woman or a blue woman. You might argue that it is acceptable to discriminate between shoes and food products, but not when it comes to people. That can be answered simply by noting that we discriminate between people all the time. I only invite friends or relatives to my apartment (or somebody who has been hired to fix something). I don’t invite random strangers or Jehova’s witnesses to my place. Most men discriminate between women by only having sex with their girlfriend/wife. We either recognize the difference between things of good quality from bad ones and accurately distinguish one thing from another. We discriminate all the time, and so we should. It is not hateful to make the distinction between apples and oranges. I don’t like tomatoes, and my sentiment toward them may be hateful, yet I’m not gonna apologize for it either.

 

Links:

Alexandr Dugin – Hour 1 – The Fourth Political Theory & Blind Western Liberalism: http://www.redicecreations.com/radio/2015/03/RIR-150327.php

Indiana pizzeria that said they’d discriminate against gays now closing due to backlash: http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/04/02/1375078/-Indiana-pizzeria-that-said-they-d-discriminate-against-gays-now-closing-due-to-backlash

Discrimination: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/discrimination

Discrimination: http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?allowed_in_frame=0&search=discrimination&searchmode=none

Freedom vs Luciferian Liberty

The majority of us human beings are enslaved by the chains of biology and nature. We are trapped in the unfortunate predicament of having to be sexually attracted to the opposite sex. Moreover hideously most us are attracted to people of generally the same age-range as us (although I tend to like younger women). But most of us find thinking of children in any sexual context quite repugnant. Neither do we really see senior citizens engaging in sex and romance with people in their late teens or early twenties as acceptable, although we do not see it as criminal either. Incest too is a hideous taboo that inhibits us from attaining liberty. All of this is very oppressing, and there is little we can do about since it’s programmed to us by the malevolent mother nature. Fortunately we have feminism, gender identity politics and other Cultural Marxist movements that are just exoteric fronts for Luciferianism seeking to liberate us.

I think that is how these Luciferians really see the laws of nature, something that have to be reversed or destroyed so we can be liberated. They see the natural state of humans, animals and nature in general as somehow faulty and desire to fix it. Even though there has been little choice in the matter on my part, I’ve never minded being attracted to women. That’s just my nature, and I’m happy to live according to it. Luciaferians cannot abide by this submission to nature (or God if you see things that way). They want their will to be supreme, and want to subvert even the laws of reality to match their fantasies. Of course, they are insane and will hardly succeed, but they can cause, and have caused, lots of damage by their actions.

Although the way the Luciferians see it, they are more free than those who follow their nature, the Luciferians are enslaved by their ideology. They are obsessed with perverting whatever the general public seems appropriate. Like I mentioned above, for Luciferians homosexuality, incest and pedophilia are the norm. They also revel in desecrating the Bible, lying and doing stuff that is generally not regarded acceptable in society. This is not freedom. This is just a more refined form of enslavement. They are bound to doing the opposite of what regular people do, and you could argue that regular people are enslaved to their habits, but the Luciferians are not any more free than them. For example, I’m a not Christian, and when I was younger I resented Christianity. However, to free myself from its grasp it was better to walk away, and say it is not for me, but neither should I engage in any anti-Christian crusade to subvert or eradicate Christianity. Luciferians seem unable to do that.

Kerth Barker claims he was sexually and ritually abused and mind controlled by Satanists when he was a child, and I believe him. He recounts this in Angelic Defenders & Demonic Abusers: The Memoirs of a Satanic Ritual Abuse Survivor. Kerth describes two “incestuous lesbian pedophiles” who are sisters and members of the Illuminati. They believed “that in the future everyone in the world will be homosexual pedophiles.” This is quite frankly the agenda I see when I look at Cultural Marxism and gender identity politics being touted everywhere. This is the tolerance they preach. I’m not opposed to tolerating the existence of homosexuals, but I am opposed to tolerating pedophilia and incest.

I’m trying think of a good segue for my next argument, but I cannot so I’m going to try gather pity by revealing that I am not writing this at my home, since I can’t use internet there due to my modem breaking down, therefore I cannot concentrate on writing this as well as I want to, and lo! We get to Angelina Jolie.

The daughter of Angelina Jolie and Brad Pitt, Shiloh, is reported as prefering to think of herself as a boy, wearing a suit and being called John. This strikes a frightening resemblance to the life of Kerth Barker as he was groomed and conditioned as boy to dress up as a girl, sexually pleasuring adults, including his grandfather, and he was given a female name, Kathy. Then there’s the thing when Jolie had her double mastectomy, i.e. removal of her breasts, to prevent breast cancer. Somehow I don’t think it was really about preventing cancer, but some ritualistic thing of perverting nature and luring other women to do the same.

I can’t help but think that Angelina Jolie is one of these Luciferians, or she is their pawn along with her children.

So when these Luciferians say they are doing something for tolerance they’re trying make us accept something inexcusable. When they promote liberty or freedom, they really mean enslavement to something perverse and harmful. When they do something for your health, they’re trying to make you sick. It’s surprisingly simple once you realize how evil they can be. David Icke said this years ago, how they always mean the opposite, but just recently I’ve really started to see it myself. Likewise, I read Icke’s descriptions of these Satanic or Luciferian pedophiles rings and secret societies, but it didn’t hit me as powerfully as reading Kerth’s first hand account. The link to the book is below. I suggest taking a look.

To get back to the headline topic for a while, the difference between freedom and liberty is that freedom is being able to do what comes naturally to you, like doing fun stuff with your loved ones, playing football, listening to music, reading tomes on esoteric wisdom, discussing philosophy and so on. Our nature is innate, and therefore to a certain degree implanted onto us, but I see little reason to challenge that, unless you challenge negative traits in yourself. Liberty, the Luciferian idea of freedom is more like your mom saying “don’t play with matches” or “don’t play near the train track”. There is a certain degree of courage in defying your mother in that manner, but ultimately it’s fucking stupid and irresponsible as the likely outcome is you’re only gonna hurt yourself or someone else defying nature.

EDIT: Will Smith’s son Jaden wears a dress.

http://hollywoodlife.com/2015/04/10/jaden-smith-wearing-dresses-shopping-girl-clothes-pics/

 

Links:

Angelic Defenders & Demonic Abusers: The Memoirs of a Satanic Ritual Abuse Survivor: http://portal.bibliotecasvirtuales.com/sites/portal.bibliotecasvirtuales.com/files/kerth_barker_-_angelic_defenders_and_demonic_abusers_free_protected.pdf

Segue: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/segue

Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie Support Their Kid Wearing Suits: http://www.advocate.com/arts-entertainment/2014/12/20/brad-pitt-and-angelina-jolie-support-their-kid-wearing-suits

The ‘Angelina Jolie effect’: Her mastectomy revelation doubled NHS breast cancer testing referrals : http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-families/health-news/the-angelina-jolie-effect-her-mastectomy-revelation-doubled-nhs-breast-cancer-testing-referrals-9742074.html

Bug with ‘Mechanical Gears’ Discovered

I just saw this article which says (and there’s a picture too):

“A plant-hopping insect found in gardens across Europe – has hind-leg joints with curved cog-like strips of opposing ’teeth’ that intermesh, rotating like mechanical gears to synchronise the animal’s legs when it launches into a jump.

The finding demonstrates that gear mechanisms previously thought to be solely man-made have an evolutionary precedent. Scientists say this is the “first observation of mechanical gearing in a biological structure”.”

So there’s something in nature, a bug, that has mechanical gears, which is supposed to be a man-made object. According to the article it is “found in gardens across Europe”. Really? I assume then it’s a new species, since if it wasn’t don’t you think someone would have noticed?

Why am I getting so excited about this you might ask, and I shall answer. I think we might be seeing “evolution” in action, and not the usual Evolution claptrap, but how it actually works; consciousness guiding the formation of matter. Now that we have had gears for a few centuries at least, they have become a normal, unremarkable part of our evironment. Seems like not only the collective cosciousness of humanity has accepted them, but also the consciousness of nature has accepted gears as useful and unintrusive. Therefore the mind of nature has seen fit to “experiment” with the form.

That’s what I think anyway. It might be due to genetic engineering or a weird mutation, but I don’t think so.

The article: http://www.redicecreations.com/article.php?id=26887